In “Anarchy is What States Make of It” Alexander Wendt describes two opposing state systems—competitive and cooperative. In competition, “states identify negatively with each other’s security so that ego’s gain is seen as alter’s loss.” In cooperation, “the security of each [state] is perceived as the responsibility of all.” Currently, there are problems such as the spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, poverty in developing countries, international financial instability, and climate change that confront the entire global community. Ideally states could cooperate in order to solve all of these dilemmas in the next twenty years. Realistically, they will only solve problems with specific and easily stated solutions. Cooperation tends to trip over every possible stumbling block, and simple solutions are necessary in order to clearly define a problem, evaluate the costs and benefits, and allow states to reach a consensus. Simplicity may require fewer actors; some problems would be better off solved within a state or bilaterally. The two fields that I believe best demonstrate the necessity of keeping it simple are terrorism and global financial stability. Terrorism would be over if governments could infiltrate and break up terrorists’ networks and if a nation’s defense was impermeable. While it may be impossible to guarantee complete safety, states understand what needs to be done in order to try. No one has yet found an acceptable method for keeping markets afloat. Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman could both win the Nobel Prize in Economics by giving the opposite answer about protectionism. When Mexico took the advice of the International Monetary Fund and “sharply reduced their budget deficits, privatized state-owned en... ... middle of paper ... ...es may work best one on one. The most successful developing countries, such as Singapore and Taiwan did not use the international community in any way besides as trading partners, and benefitted from governmental reforms. Opening to trade and fixing government are both choices a country makes internally. Complexity is anathema to international cooperation. Since there is no enforcement mechanism for states to get along, coalitions fall apart at every fork in the road. Strong groups need simple tasks and common motivations. Ensuring safety from terrorists and nuclear weapons seems to have a lot more draw than sacrificing industry for the environment, or relative gains for economic success. This is not to say that nothing will be done to confront every major global issue. When trying to save the world, though, it might be best to keep countries out of it.
“Institutions are essential; they facilitate cooperation by building on common interests, hence maximizing the gains for all parties. Institutions provide a guaranteed framework of interactions; they suggest that there will be an expectation of future encounters. They facilitate cooperation by building on common interest, thus maximizing the gain for all parties.” (Mingst, 2011) This theory supports the idea that if one cooperates with the other they both will gain, but once the established trust is lost between the cooperating countries, one should do whatever is in their own economic i...
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
Complex events are incidents that challenge pre-existing ideas through not meeting standard expectations or solutions. Equally, due to their ‘complex’ nature they should be able to be analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. A multidisciplinary perspective is the drawing together of methodologies from different social science disciplines (such as economics, international relations, history and political science) to analyse an event and consequently reach a single conclusion. Overall, the use of a multidisciplinary perspective (in comparison to a singular disciplinary perspective) will provide the fullest and most accurate analysis of complex events, however this can create a trade off with the complexity and time taken to reach a conclusion. Firstly, this advantage will be argued through implying complex events have complex causality that can only truly be seen through a multidisciplinary perspective. Secondly, it can be seen that all social sciences lie on a spectrum with lots of overlap and interdependence between disciplines, and therefore it is an intrinsic feature of the social sciences to view complex events through a multidisciplinary perspective. Finally, it can also be seen that each discipline has respective areas of strength as well as areas of weakness and consequently a multidisciplinary approach allows for the most accurate and broadest analysis of a respective event. This can be shown through examples of complex events such as the current problem posed by Climate Change and the unforeseen end to the Cold War in 1991.
Many political scientists symbolically consider the Balance-of-Power concept central to a firm understanding of classical realism. As T. V. Paul (2004) explains, the Balance of Power’s common form appears as a system of alliances in which the stronger nations deter their weaker counter-parts from acting belligerently (Paul, 2004). This symbiotic concept of balancing power, nevertheless, is not an inherent thought and specifically appeared in the modern era. Its entrance into the world of international politics represented a fundamental paradigm shift in which it became necessary to reevaluate our systematic understanding of the social and political world Wendt (2006). Questions centered on the underlying concepts that drove the system ever forward such as: by whom was the system made, how does such a system function, what brought about such political organizations, and how could a state theoretically enter into the system. Hume, an ancient and respected theorist, largely analyzed the relationship between states and the idea of the Balance-of-Power theory. Similar to Hume, International-Relations thinkers, such as Spykman, Wolfers, and Morgenthau, became paramount to the concept’s realization. For brevity’s sake, thinkers spent a vast amount of time pondering the theory’s many forms insofar as they produced a semi-coherent discourse upon which its modern form operates.
The theory of democratic peace is a classical idea that has been cited repeatedly by scholars. While Kant was not a darling of democracy, he wrote about perpetual peace, which he describes would only happen if states achieve a form of civil constitution. To him, perpetual peace exists when a regime honors property owned by citizens and when citizens live equally being the subjects based on a representative government that is built on the premise of separation of powers. The theory of democratic peace is therefore built on the proposition that some negative elements of government can be disabled to make a nation thrive in an international arena. This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained...
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
...Humans can make more improvements if they are willing to help each other and come to a common agreement. If we are united as a country then things would work out easier then it does now. One way humans can improve the economic organization is to find out the things that are critical and try to come to a common agreement on fixing them. We need ambitious and young people to manage our economy in order to prosper. A young mentality can change the face of that particular economy.
Anarchy is commonly seen as an antigovernment and antiestablishment term, but in international relations this term takes a different meaning. Anarchy refers to a lack of formal and authoritative government in the international system (11 Jordan). Anarchy is viewed in different ways amongst the three theories. Thomas Hobbes, a realism theorist, comments on anarchy by saying that when there is no overarching authority, there is no law and no peace because there because these individuals must constantly compete for survival (11 Slaughter). Liberalists believe that international anarchy can be overcome through a particular kind of collective action, like a federation of republics in which sovereign states would be left in tact (11 Slaughter). Constructivists say that “anarchy is what the states make of it,” which means that if a state identifies only with itself that it may see the international system as anarchic (94 Mingst). All three of these theories incorporate anarchy into its methodology, but in respectively different
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
Collective security is one type of coalition building strategy whether global or regional in which a group of nations agree not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such an attack is made. The principal is that "an attack against one is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defense" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks. It can also be described as a system where states attempt with its use to prevent or stop wars. Examples of Collective defense are NATO and the Warsaw Pact .The United Nations (UN) is the best example at an attempt at collective security. Many nations enter into such an agreement in an effort to maintain the status quo and to secure their best interests. Collective security is achieved when states come to an agreement on the need for same. As a result an international organization is formed under the rules of international law. The collective security organization then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimized by the Collective Security organization, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. This idea of collective security was posited by people such as Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. There are a few basic assumptions as it relates to collective security, including , In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor another basic assumption is that each member state has freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor. Also of great importance is the fact that all member nation-states are e...
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
...ous situations, possibly because these studies have attributed motive and action to the states rather than to the decision-makers within them. Thus, foreign relations and policies can truly be strengthened when people can view and truly appreciate international issue in many different perspectives, such as realist, idealist, liberalist, constructivism, feminist, world economic system analysis, etc. When people are able to see issues and solutions to problems in many different ways world peace might be reachable.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is a regional security based organization. This organization is unique in many ways and has been contributing to the security of its members and neighbors since 1975. The OSCE has had a busy history from the Cold War and beyond. With the end of the Cold War major shifts have come about in the area of international security that this organization primarily deals with. The OSCE is now facing a new era where it needs to convince its members that it still has a role to play.
Despite the international system being anarchical, it is not in a state of total chaos due to a number of significant factors such as those above. It is obvious that the current international system is highly influenced by many significant factors and some are more prominent than others. With the continued existence of international anarchy it is up to the States and the International Organisations to continue to make the decisions that are in their own best interest and to maintain order and an ever-improving way of life.
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...